Small Claims Track Costs - Unreasonable behaviour

ChirpyChicken

Interesting reading

Taken from Linkedin

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2025/CC12.html

**Small Claims Costs** - Of course you can argue for costs at this level. Be rude not to.

In Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC Trading as Barclay Card [2025] EWCC 12 (27 March 2025) - HHJ Robinson BEM had an appeal brought before him in the County Court at Middlesbrough to deal with Unreasonable behavior per CPR 27.14(2)(g)

Background

-Case originated from a claim issued by the claimant on 10 July 2023 for damages valued between £1,500–£3,000, alleging an unfair relationship under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
-The claim was allocated to the small claims track, with a provisional quantum of £2,750.78.
-Procedural history included several hearings, change of claimant’s legal representation, and eventual discontinuance of the claim on 7 June 2024.
-Following discontinuance, the defendant sought costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for alleged unreasonable behavior.
-District Judge Lindsay ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs after finding unreasonable behavior.
-The claimant appealed the costs order.

Claimant Arguments

-The District Judge erred in finding that the timing of the discontinuance amounted to unreasonable behavior.
-Discontinuance alone does not constitute unreasonable behavior under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
-The conduct did not meet the threshold of being unexplained or incapable of reasonable justification.
-Claimed that early discontinuance saved court time and promoted the overriding objective.

Defendant Arguments

-The costs application was not based solely on discontinuance but on the timing and context in which it occurred.
-The claimant's conduct lacked reasonable explanation, especially failing to respond to multiple detailed invitations to discontinue and specific analysis of claim weaknesses.
-The final "drop hands" offer on 22 May 2024 included a clear warning of costs consequences if not accepted by 31 May 2024.

Court Judgment

-The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Judge’s decision.
-Confirmed that CPR 27.14(2)(g) allows a costs order in small claims where a party has behaved unreasonably.
-The discontinuance on 7 June 2024 came after a clear final invitation to discontinue by 31 May 2024.
-Held that failing to make the commercial decision earlier and causing avoidable trial preparation costs was unreasonable.
-No procedural error in the DJ’s judgment. Appeal dismissed, costs awarded.

The Court also gave Obiter observations. Absolutely WILD for a small claims track. But actually seems quite sensible and necessary.

Obiter comments were...

Suggested a potential 4-stage framework to guide future assessments of unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g):

-Proof – Is the alleged conduct proven?
-Seriousness – Is the conduct serious/significant enough to require explanation?
-Explanation – Is there a good reason for the conduct?
-Reasonableness – Do any other reasonable explanations emerge when considering the whole case?
KE Costs Lawyers - Legal Costs Specialists

Car1980

Excellent. We need a guinea pig to request costs after a DCB Legal discontinuance.

The 500+ thread is obviously gold.

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

Interesting reading

Taken from Linkedin

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2025/CC12.html

**Small Claims Costs** - Of course you can argue for costs at this level. Be rude not to.

In Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC Trading as Barclay Card [2025] EWCC 12 (27 March 2025) - HHJ Robinson BEM had an appeal brought before him in the County Court at Middlesbrough to deal with Unreasonable behavior per CPR 27.14(2)(g)

Background

-Case originated from a claim issued by the claimant on 10 July 2023 for damages valued between £1,500–£3,000, alleging an unfair relationship under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
-The claim was allocated to the small claims track, with a provisional quantum of £2,750.78.
-Procedural history included several hearings, change of claimant’s legal representation, and eventual discontinuance of the claim on 7 June 2024.
-Following discontinuance, the defendant sought costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for alleged unreasonable behavior.
-District Judge Lindsay ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs after finding unreasonable behavior.
-The claimant appealed the costs order.

Claimant Arguments

-The District Judge erred in finding that the timing of the discontinuance amounted to unreasonable behavior.
-Discontinuance alone does not constitute unreasonable behavior under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
-The conduct did not meet the threshold of being unexplained or incapable of reasonable justification.
-Claimed that early discontinuance saved court time and promoted the overriding objective.

Defendant Arguments

-The costs application was not based solely on discontinuance but on the timing and context in which it occurred.
-The claimant's conduct lacked reasonable explanation, especially failing to respond to multiple detailed invitations to discontinue and specific analysis of claim weaknesses.
-The final "drop hands" offer on 22 May 2024 included a clear warning of costs consequences if not accepted by 31 May 2024.

Court Judgment

-The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Judge’s decision.
-Confirmed that CPR 27.14(2)(g) allows a costs order in small claims where a party has behaved unreasonably.
-The discontinuance on 7 June 2024 came after a clear final invitation to discontinue by 31 May 2024.
-Held that failing to make the commercial decision earlier and causing avoidable trial preparation costs was unreasonable.
-No procedural error in the DJ’s judgment. Appeal dismissed, costs awarded.

The Court also gave Obiter observations. Absolutely WILD for a small claims track. But actually seems quite sensible and necessary.

Obiter comments were...

Suggested a potential 4-stage framework to guide future assessments of unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g):

-Proof – Is the alleged conduct proven?
-Seriousness – Is the conduct serious/significant enough to require explanation?
-Explanation – Is there a good reason for the conduct?
-Reasonableness – Do any other reasonable explanations emerge when considering the whole case?
KE Costs Lawyers - Legal Costs Specialists

Very useful indeed. Thanks!

@Johnersh

@bargepole